CAR_Public/090402.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 65

                           Headlines

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Eastbourne Capital Comments on Del. Suit
AROTECH CORP: N.Y Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Fraud Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: "Bondar" Suit Merged w/ Related Suits in Calif.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Merrill Lynch ARS
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Dismiss Suits on ARS Trade Conspiracy

BANK OF AMERICA: Motions to Dismiss CFC Securities Suits Pending
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: Ontario Court Certifies BSE Litigation
CUNA MUTUAL: Faces Pa. Suit Over Mortgage Disability Insurance
EHARMONY INC: Court Sets Oct. 20 Trial for Civil Rights Lawsuit
GEO GROUP: Pa. Judge Allows Suit Over Strip Searches to Proceed

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Florida Litigation Over Data Breach
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo.
MERCK & CO: 145 Civil Lawsuits on Consumer Fraud Pending
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax Product Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: Defends Consolidated Vytorin ERISA Lawsuit in N.J.

MERCK & CO: Defends Consolidated Vytorin Securities Litigation
MERCK & CO: Pediatric Vaccines Product Liability Suits Pending
MERCK & CO: To Appeal Ruling Denying Stay of Ontario Lawsuits
NORTHERN TRUST: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois Court
PASO ROBLES: Faces Suit Over Illegally Imposed Sewer, Water Fees

ZURN PEX: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Leaks in Plumbing Systems

* Seyfarth Shaw Partner Comments on U.S. Supreme Court Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROCHESTER FUND: Johnson Bottini Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ROCHESTER FUND: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
WELLS FARGO: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.


                           *********

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Eastbourne Capital Comments on Del. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Eastbourne Capital Management, L.L.C. commented on
developments late yesterday in the class action lawsuit filed
against Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMLN) and its
entire Board of Directors by Amylin shareholder, San Antonio
Fire & Police Pension Fund.

     The lawsuit was filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery and
seeks to invalidate "poison put" provisions in Amylin's credit
agreements and to require the Amylin Board to remove the
obstacle posed by those provisions to the election of directors
nominated separately by Eastbourne and by funds affiliated with
Carl Icahn.

     Rick Barry, Eastbourne Founder and Portfolio Manager said,
"We understand that the Delaware Court has ordered expedited
discovery and set a May 4th trial date to determine whether the
Board should be required to approve all Eastbourne and Icahn
Fund nominees for the purpose of the current election contest.
We believe this is an important step forward that recognizes the
potential merit of the action brought against Amylin and its
current directors to seek relief from the 'poison puts' and to
allow an open and free election of directors at this year's
annual meeting."

     Added Barry, "We find it truly unfortunate that
shareholders have been forced to seek a court intervention to
ensure a fundamental shareholder right and the proper
functioning of the most basic shareholder franchise, the annual
election of directors."

     Commenting on the announcement of the Company's slate of
director nominees, Barry said, "We also believe that the
addition of two new names to an otherwise incumbent slate is too
little change, too late.  We would have thought that, if the
Board wanted to demonstrate real change to shareholders, it
would have proposed that new directors form a substantial
minority on the Board.  At the very least all three previous
Amylin CEO's who currently sit on the Board would have stood
down.

     Concluded Barry, "In addition, if only two directors were
to be replaced as contemplated by the Company's announced slate,
the Company's long-reigning Chairman, a board member for over 15
years, would have been an obvious and appropriate choice to not
stand for election."

Eastbourne Capital -- https://www.eastbournecapital.com -- is a
West Coast-based registered investment advisor that employs an
investment philosophy based on intensive research, a long-term
outlook and a belief in working alongside portfolio companies to
enhance shareholder value.


AROTECH CORP: N.Y Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Arotech Corporation (NASDAQ: ARTX), a provider of quality
defense and security products for the military, law enforcement
and security markets, announced that its motion to dismiss as a
matter of law the class action case brought against it in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Akerman v. Arotech Corporation et al., 07 CV 1838 (RJD)) has
been denied.

     "We are obviously very disappointed that our motion was
denied," said Arotech Chairman and CEO Robert S. Ehrlich.  "We
intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in this
matter," continued Ehrlich.  "In this connection, it is
important to reiterate that this claim is covered by insurance
up to the limit of our coverage, which is $25 million, and that
we have already booked the charge for the policy deductible,"
concluded Ehrlich.

                         Case Background

In May 2007, two purported class-action complaints were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  These two cases were consolidated in June 2007
(Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2008).

A similar case that was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in March 2007 was withdrawn by
the plaintiff in June 2007.

The complaint seeks class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between Nov. 9, 2004 and Nov.
14, 2005, and alleges violations by it and certain of its
officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of
America in 2005 and certain public statements made with respect
to its business and prospects during the Period.

The Complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that its financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.

A lead plaintiff has been named, and the plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2007.  The
company's motion to dismiss was due by the end of November 2007,
but a decision on the motion is not expected until mid-2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Morris Akerman, et al. v. Arotech Corporation, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-01838," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Raymond J. Dearie
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: 860-526-1100
          Fax: 860-526-1120

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ann Schmid, Esq. (schmid@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven, P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10028
          Phone: 212-501-9000
          Fax: 212-501-0300

Representing the defendants are:

          Randall W. Bodner, Esq. (randall.bodner@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7000
          Fax: 617-951-7050


BANK OF AMERICA: "Bondar" Suit Merged w/ Related Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action entitled, "Bondar v. Bank of America
Corporation," has been consolidated with related actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the Corporation's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On May 22, 2008, the Bondar action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Corporation, Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (BAI)
and Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) (collectively Bank of
America) on behalf of persons who purchased auction rate
securities (ARS) from the defendants.

The amended complaint, which was filed on Jan. 22, 2009,
alleges, among other things, that Bank of America manipulated
the market for, and failed to disclose material facts about, ARS
and seeks to recover unspecified damages for losses in the
market value of ARS allegedly caused by the decision of the
Company and other broker-dealers to discontinue supporting
auctions for the securities.

On Feb. 12, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated Bondar and two related, individual federal actions
into one proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Bank of America Corp. -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a
bank holding company.  Through its banking subsidiaries, and
various non-banking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in
selected international markets, Bank of America provides a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services
and products through three business segments: Global Consumer
and Small Business Banking, Global Corporate and Investment
Banking, and Global Wealth and Investment Management.  The
company operates in 32 states, the District of Columbia and 30
foreign countries.  In the U.S., it serves 59 million consumer
and small business relationships with 6,100 retail banking
offices, 18,500 automated teller machines, and 24 million active
online users.  It offers services in 13 states.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Merrill Lynch ARS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. faces a consolidated class-action amended
complaint relating to auction rate securities (ARS) sold by
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

The Corporation acquired Merrill Lynch on Jan. 1, 2009.

On March 25, 2008, a putative class-action suit, "Burton v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Merrill Lynch on behalf of persons who purchased and continue to
hold ARS offered for sale by Merrill Lynch between March 25,
2003 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Merrill Lynch
failed to disclose material facts about ARS.

A similar action, captioned, "Stanton v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., et al.," was filed the next day in the same court.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the two cases were consolidated.

On Dec. 10, 2008, a consolidated class action amended complaint
was filed.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
ARS allegedly caused by the decision of Merrill Lynch to
discontinue supporting auctions for the securities.

Responses to the amended complaint were due on Feb. 27, 2009,
according to the Corporation's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Bank of America Corp. -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a
bank holding company.  Through its banking subsidiaries, and
various non-banking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in
selected international markets, Bank of America provides a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services
and products through three business segments: Global Consumer
and Small Business Banking, Global Corporate and Investment
Banking, and Global Wealth and Investment Management.  The
company operates in 32 states, the District of Columbia and 30
foreign countries.  In the U.S., it serves 59 million consumer
and small business relationships with 6,100 retail banking
offices, 18,500 automated teller machines, and 24 million active
online users.  It offers services in 13 states.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Dismiss Suits on ARS Trade Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. seeks to dismiss two civil antitrust
putative class-action suits alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrain trade in auction rate securities (ARS) by
artificially supporting auctions and later withdrawing that
support.

On Sept. 4, 2008, the class-action suits, "City of Baltimore v.
Citigroup et al.," and "Mayfield v. Citigroup et al.," were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Corporation, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and
other financial institutions alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrain trade in ARS by artificially supporting
auctions and later withdrawing that support.

The Corporation acquired Merrill Lynch on Jan. 1, 2009.

City of Baltimore Suit

The City of Baltimore suit is filed on behalf of a class of
issuers of ARS underwritten by the defendants between May 12,
2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 who seek to recover the alleged above-
market interest payments they claim they were forced to make
when the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and others allegedly
discontinued supporting ARS.

The plaintiffs who also purchased ARS also seek to recover
claimed losses in the market value of those securities allegedly
caused by the decision of the financial institutions to
discontinue supporting auctions for the securities.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages and to rescind at par their
purchases of ARS.

Mayfield Litigation

Mayfield is filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired
ARS directly from defendants and who held those securities as of
Feb. 13, 2008.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
ARS allegedly caused by the decision of the Corporation and
Merrill Lynch and others to discontinue supporting auctions for
the securities.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages and to rescind at par their
purchases of ARS.

On Jan. 15, 2009, defendants, including the Corporation and
Merrill Lynch, filed a motion to dismiss the complaints,
according to Bank of America's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Bank of America Corp. -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a
bank holding company.  Through its banking subsidiaries, and
various non-banking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in
selected international markets, Bank of America provides a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services
and products through three business segments: Global Consumer
and Small Business Banking, Global Corporate and Investment
Banking, and Global Wealth and Investment Management.  The
company operates in 32 states, the District of Columbia and 30
foreign countries.  In the U.S., it serves 59 million consumer
and small business relationships with 6,100 retail banking
offices, 18,500 automated teller machines, and 24 million active
online users.  It offers services in 13 states.


BANK OF AMERICA: Motions to Dismiss CFC Securities Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss two separate putative class-action suits
relating to certain Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC)
equity and debt securities are pending, according to Bank of
America Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

CFC, certain other Countrywide entities, and certain former
officers and directors of CFC, among others, have been named as
defendants in the two putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

CFC Securities Litigation

One case, entitled, "In re Countrywide Financial Corp.
Securities Litigation," was filed by certain New York state and
municipal pension funds on behalf of purchasers of CFC's common
stock and certain other equity and debt securities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that CFC made
misstatements (including in certain SEC filings) concerning the
nature and quality of its loan underwriting practices and its
financial results, in violation of the antifraud provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiffs also assert claims against Banc of America Securities
LLC (BAS), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (MLPFS)
and other underwriter defendants under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages, among other remedies.

On Dec. 1, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the First Consolidated
Amended Complaint, with leave to amend certain claims.

The plaintiffs have filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  A motion to dismiss is pending.

Argent Classic Lawsuit

The other case, entitled, "Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage
Fund L.P. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
in October 2007, against CFC on behalf of purchasers of certain
Series A and B debentures issued in various private placements
pursuant to a May 16, 2007 CFC offering memorandum.

This matter involves allegations similar to those in the "In re
Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation" case,
asserts claims under the antifraud provisions of the Exchange
Act and California state law, and seeks unspecified damages.

Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint that added the
Corporation as a defendant.  A motion to dismiss is pending.

Bank of America Corp. -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a
bank holding company.  Through its banking subsidiaries, and
various non-banking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in
selected international markets, Bank of America provides a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services
and products through three business segments: Global Consumer
and Small Business Banking, Global Corporate and Investment
Banking, and Global Wealth and Investment Management.  The
company operates in 32 states, the District of Columbia and 30
foreign countries.  In the U.S., it serves 59 million consumer
and small business relationships with 6,100 retail banking
offices, 18,500 automated teller machines, and 24 million active
online users.  It offers services in 13 states.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: Ontario Court Certifies BSE Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Crawford Class Action Services reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has certified the BSE Class Action
against the Government of Canada.

     The application for a leave to appeal by the Government of
Canada was denied on January 2, 2009, officially certifying the
class action against the Government of Canada on behalf of the
Ontario National Class.

     Lawsuits were commenced in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
and Alberta in 2005 against the Government of Canada alleging
that the government was responsible for allowing the
introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) into the
Canadian cattle herd.

     For further information about the Certification of the BSE
Class Action visit: http://www.bseclassaction.ca.

For more details, contact:

          Crawford Class Action Services
          Phone: 1-866-800-0075
          e-mail: bse@crawco.ca


CUNA MUTUAL: Faces Pa. Suit Over Mortgage Disability Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
CUNA Mutual Insurance Society is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit that was filed by a western Pennsylvania couple who
claim that the insurer wrongly stopped disability coverage 10
years after the loan began, not 10 years after the man who took
out the loan lost his job due to arthritis, Joe Mandak of The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit filed by Ronald and Donna Ogrizovich, of Aliquippa,
also claims CUNA Mutual Insurance Society of Madison, Wis.,
which provided disability insurance for credit union loans,
doesn't warn consumers, as required by Pennsylvania law, when
such policies don't cover the entire loan term, according to the
AP report.

The Beaver County couple say that the company stopped disability
coverage 10 years after they got the loan in 1997.  But the
couple claim the policy was supposed to provide 10 years of
coverage once the husband became disabled in 2003 and could no
longer make the payments — which run until 2012.

The couple's attorney says the Madison, Wisconsin-based company
also didn't provide proper warnings to credit union customers
who bought disability insurance that covers less than the full
term of their loans, reports The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the suit was filed last
month, but the company's Pittsburgh attorney, Daniel Rivetti,
Esq., on March 30, 2009, moved the case to U.S. District Court
in Pittsburgh.  Among the reasons Mr. Rivetti cited in court
documents is that the lawsuit opens the company up to
potentially hundreds of claims worth more than $5 million.

The suit is captioned, "Ogrizovich et al v. CUNA Mutual Group et
al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00371-DSC," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.


EHARMONY INC: Court Sets Oct. 20 Trial for Civil Rights Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victoria Chaney of the California Superior Court in Los
Angeles set an Oct. 20, 2009 trial for a purported class-action
lawsuit against the well-known on-line dating company, eHarmony,
Inc.

Chloe Albanesius of PC Magazine previously reported that Judge
Chaney allowed a lawsuit against eHarmony, an online dating
Internet site, to proceed as a class-action lawsuit (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).

Linda Carlson sued eHarmony in May 2007 for refusing to match
gay and lesbian couples.  The policy, she claimed, is a
violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prevents
business establishments from discriminating based on sexual
orientation.  For personal reasons, Ms. Carlson has since been
replaced by Nate Cardin as the lead plaintiff, according to PC
Magazine.

The complaint specifically claims that eHarmony, which an
evangelical and conservative Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren,
founded sometime in year 2000, refused to extend its dating
service to gays, lesbians and bisexuals (Class Action Reporter,
June 4, 2007).

The lawsuit says Linda Carlson was denied access when she tried
using the site's dating service in February 2007.  She wrote to
eHarmony telling them that its anti-gay policy is discriminatory
under the state's law.  The company didn't heed her and never
changed it.

According to attorney Todd Schneider, the suit seeks to change
the landscape and make a statement that gays and lesbians have
the right and desire to meet with other people with whom they
can fall in love with.  It also seeks to force eHarmony to end
its policy and to pay unspecified damages for those similarly
situated.

In November 2008, PC Magazine reported that Judge Chaney granted
the motion for class certification. The decision will allow gay,
lesbian and bisexual individuals who were denied service from
eHarmony dating back to 2004 to join the case as a class
participant.

Individuals do not have to prove actual injury to obtain
damages, just that they visited eHarmony and were denied
service, reports PC Magazine.

For more information, contact plaintiff's lawyer:

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          Schneider & Wallace
          180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone:  (415) 421-7100
          Fax:  (415) 421-1655


GEO GROUP: Pa. Judge Allows Suit Over Strip Searches to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jan E. DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled that The GEO Group, Inc., the
operator of a privately run prison in Delaware County can be
sued for allegedly conducting routine strip searches of even
minor offenders, The Associated Press reports.

The ruling was in relation to a purported class-action lawsuit
against the company that was filed by an inmate at one of its
jails over the company's strip search policy, reports The
Associated Press.

Federal courts have mostly held that prison officials must have
reason to suspect such inmates are hiding contrabands before
conducting strip searches, given their humiliating nature,
according to the AP report.

In his 49-page ruling, Judge DuBois said that the suit can move
forward against the Boca Raton, Fla.-based company, which ran
the nearly 1,900-bed Delaware County Prison until ending the
contract last year, The Associated Press reported.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 30, 2008 and named as
plaintiffs Stephen Dimitri Bussy, Penny Allison and Zoran
Hocevar.  Court records show that Mr. Bussy was terminated on
March 28, 2008 as a plaintiff in the litigation.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company has a company-wide blanket
policy at its immigration/detention facilities and jails that
requires all new inmates and detainees to undergo a strip search
upon intake into each facility (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12,
2009).

The plaintiff alleges that this practice, to the extent
implemented, violates the civil rights of the affected inmates
and detainees.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for all purported class
members, a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the
alleged policy from being implemented in the future, according
to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
29, 2008.

The suit is "Bussy v. The Geo Group, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:08-
cv-00467-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Pennsylvania, Judge Jan E. Dubois, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. (chris@chayeslaw.com)
          Law Offices of Christopher G. Hayes
          225 South Church Street
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Phone: 610-431-9505
          Fax: 610-431-1269

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. (bfj@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Ave.
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8200

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq. (drudovsky@krlawphila.com)
          Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg
          The Cast Iron Building Suite 501 South
          718 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-925-4400
          Fax: 215-925-5365


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Florida Litigation Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., a credit card payment
processor, is facing a purported class-action suit over what
some have said may be the largest data breach in U.S. History,
Paul Brinkmann of The South Florida Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 26, 2009 by the Palm Beach County
Credit Union.

Aside from PBC Credit Union, other plaintiffs in the suit are:
Gulf Winds Federal Credit Union, Alabama Rural Electric Federal
Credit Union, and First Castle Federal Credit Union.

In January, the New Jersey-based company said that, as early as
May 2008, a computer hacker gained access to an unknown number
of accounts involving more than 625 banking institutions,
reports The South Florida Business Journal.

The South Florida Business Journal reported that the lawsuit
alleges Heartland was slow to notify its clients, and that delay
caused additional damages.  It alleges that Palm Beach County
Credit Union suffered damages because it had to reissue credit
and debit cards.

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages for allegations of
negligence and breach of duty, according to The South Florida
Business Journal report.

The suit is "PBC Credit Union et al v. Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc., Case No. 9:09-cv-80481-KAM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge
Kenneth A. Marra, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. (tleopold@leopoldkuvin.com)
          Leopold~Kuvin, P.A.
          2925 PGA Boulevard
          Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Phone: 561-515-1400
          Fax: 561-515-1401


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     At least four investors in Level 3 Communications have
filed lawsuits against Level 3 alleging Securities Laws
violations.  Recently an investor in Level 3 Communications has
filed another proposed securities class action lawsuit again
Level 3 on behalf of an expanded investor group of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Level 3 Communications, Inc. between October 24, 2006 and
October 23, 2007.

     According to the recent complaint the plaintiff alleges
similar to the other complaints filed that Level 3
Communications (NASDAQ: LVLT; "Level 3") defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning
Level 3's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading, but expands the period to October 24, 2006
and October 23, 2007.

     According to the complaint, the defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate that, Level 3's efforts to integrate the numerous
acquired companies were not going well, Level 3 was experiencing
an increase in service activation times, which was negatively
impacting the its service installation intervals and rate of
revenue growth, Level 3 was also experiencing challenges in its
service management processes that were resulting in longer
response times to resolve customers' network service issues,
steps taken by Level 3 to remedy the problems were not working,
and actually were further complicating the issues and making
them worse, as a result of the above, Level 3 did not have
adequate provisioning capability to convert its increasing
sales, or signed orders, into revenue generating service, Level
3 lacked adequate internal controls; and, as a result of the
above, the statements made by Level 3 and management during the
Class Period lacked a reasonable basis.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 revealed that it was having
extensive difficulties integrating the systems and customer-
service processes of the numerous companies it had acquired, and
these difficulties were causing an increase in service
activation times.  Level 3 revised downward its previously
issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008.  On
this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or
approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  Currently Level 3
stock is traded at about $0.88 per share.  Last year the shares
traded as high as $4.15 per share, in 2007 LVLT shares were as
high as $6.55, and Level 3's all time high was in March 2000
with over $130 per share.  Level 3 Communications, through its
operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.  Level 3 is
based in Broomfield, Colorado and had a total revenue of $4.3
billion in 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Trevor Allen
          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423 -
          92108 San Diego
          Phone: +1-(858)-779-1554
          Fax: +1-(858)-605-5739
          e-mail: mail@shareholdersfoundation.com
          Web site: http://www.ShareholdersFoundation.com


MERCK & CO: 145 Civil Lawsuits on Consumer Fraud Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to face civil class action lawsuits
alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in
connection with the MSP Partnership's sale and promotion of
Vytorin and Zetia.

The company has become aware of or been served with
approximately 145 civil class action lawsuits.

Certain of those lawsuits allege personal injuries and/or seek
medical monitoring.

These actions, which have been filed in or transferred to
federal court, are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District Court of New Jersey
before District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

The parties are presently engaged in motions practice and
briefing, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend product liability lawsuits
in the United States involving Fosamax.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, approximately 779 cases, which include
approximately 1,158 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court,
including one case which seeks class action certification, as
well as damages and/or medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth
extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.

On Aug. 16, 2006, the JPML ordered that the Fosamax product
liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be
transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
("Fosamax MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  As a
result of the JPML order, approximately 645 of the cases are
before Judge Keenan.  Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management
Order (and various amendments thereto) setting forth a schedule
governing the proceedings which focused primarily upon resolving
the class action certification motions in 2007 and completing
fact discovery in an initial group of 25 cases by Oct. 1, 2008.

Briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for certification
of medical monitoring classes were completed in 2007 and Judge
Keenan issued an order denying the motions on Jan. 3, 2008.  On
Jan. 28, 2008, Judge Keenan issued a further order dismissing
with prejudice all class claims asserted in the first four class
action lawsuits filed against Merck that sought personal injury
damages and/or medical monitoring relief on a class wide basis.

In October 2008, Judge Keenan issued an order requiring that
Daubert motions be filed in May 2009 and scheduling trials in
the first three cases in the MDL for August 2009, October 2009,
and January 2010, respectively.  A trial is scheduled in Alabama
state court later in 2009.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the
Atlantic County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all
of the Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for
mass tort designation and centralized management before one
judge in New Jersey.  On Oct. 6, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme
Court ordered that all pending and future actions filed in New
Jersey arising out of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for
existing dental and jaw-related injuries, including
osteonecrosis of the jaw, but not solely seeking medical
monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized
management purposes before Judge Higbee in Atlantic County
Superior Court.  As a result of the New Jersey Supreme Court's
order, approximately 100 cases were coordinated as of Dec. 31,
2008, before Judge Higbee, who is expected to begin setting
various case management deadlines during the first quarter of
2009.

Discovery is ongoing in both the Fosamax MDL litigation as well
as in various state court cases, according to the company's Feb.
27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Defends Consolidated Vytorin ERISA Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. defends putative class action lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin
ERISA Litigation.

On April 22, 2008, a member of a Merck Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) plan filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers and
directors alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA.

Since that time, there have been other similar ERISA lawsuits
filed against the company in the District of New Jersey, and all
of those lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption, "In
re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin ERISA Litigation."

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2009, and
names as defendants Merck and various members of Merck's Board
of Directors and members of committees of Merck's Board of
Directors.

Plaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment in company
stock was imprudent because the Company's earnings are dependent
on the commercial success of its cholesterol drug Vytorin and
that defendants knew or should have known that the results of a
scientific study would cause the medical community to turn to
less expensive drugs for cholesterol management, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Defends Consolidated Vytorin Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. intends to defend the amended consolidated
complaint in the federal securities lawsuit styled, "In re Merck
& Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation."

On April 3, 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class-
action lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that Merck and its Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Richard T. Clark, violated the federal
securities laws.

This suit has since been withdrawn and re-filed in the District
of New Jersey and has been consolidated with another federal
securities lawsuit under the caption, "In re Merck &  Co., Inc.
Vytorin Securities Litigation."

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Oct. 6, 2008, and
names as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of the company's officers and
directors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Merck delayed releasing
unfavorable results of a clinical study regarding the efficacy
of Vytorin and that Merck made false and misleading statements
about expected earnings, knowing that once the results of the
Vytorin study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and
its earnings would suffer, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Pediatric Vaccines Product Liability Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. remains party to individual and class-action
product liability lawsuits and claims in the United States
involving pediatric vaccines (e.g., hepatitis B vaccine) that
contained thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines.

Merck has not distributed thimerosal-containing pediatric
vaccines in the United States since the fall of 2001.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, there were approximately 230 thimerosal
related lawsuits pending in which the company is a defendant,
although the vast majority of those lawsuits are not currently
active.  Other defendants include other vaccine manufacturers
who produced pediatric vaccines containing thimerosal as well as
manufacturers of thimerosal.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that they have suffered neurological injuries as a result of
exposure to thimerosal from pediatric vaccines.

There are no cases currently scheduled for trial, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: To Appeal Ruling Denying Stay of Ontario Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. intends to seek leave to appeal the decision
denying the stay of the Ontario class proceedings from the
Ontario Court of Appeal.

On May 30, 2008, the provincial court of Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan, Canada entered an order certifying a class of
Vioxx users in Canada, except those in Quebec.

The class includes individual purchasers who allege inducement
to purchase by unfair marketing practices; individuals who
allege Vioxx was not of acceptable quality, defective or not fit
for the purpose of managing pain associated with approved
indications; or ingestors who claim Vioxx caused or exacerbated
a cardiovascular or gastrointestinal condition.

On June 17, 2008, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan granted
the company leave to appeal the certification order.  That
appeal was argued before that court, and the court has reserved
decision.

On July 28, 2008, the Superior Court in Ontario denied the
company's motion to stay class proceedings in Ontario, which had
been based on the earlier certification order entered in
Saskatchewan, and decided to certify an overlapping class of
Vioxx users in Canada, except those in Quebec and Saskatchewan,
who allege negligence and an entitlement to elect to waive the
tort.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the Ontario Divisional Court granted the
company's motion for leave to appeal the Superior Court's
decision denying the stay of the Ontario class proceedings and
denied the company's motion to appeal the certification order.
The company's appeal was heard by the Ontario Divisional Court
in February 2009.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the Divisional Court declined to set aside the
order denying the stay.

In November 2006, the Superior court in Quebec authorized the
institution of a class action on behalf of all individuals who,
in Quebec, consumed Vioxx and suffered damages arising out of
its ingestion.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs have not
instituted an action based upon that authorization, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


NORTHERN TRUST: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Global Investments and its parent, Northern Trust
Co., are facing a lawsuit filed in Illinois that was filed by a
participant in the $19.8 billion 401(k) plan of Exxon Mobil
Corp., Irving, Texas, over losses from his investment in a
Northern Trust S&P 500 index fund, Christine Williamson of
Pensions & Investments.

The lawsuit, filed on March 30, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by Joseph L. Diebold Jr.,
alleges Northern Trust breached its fiduciary responsibility
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

Pensions & Investments reported that aside form seeking class-
action status, the suit also seeks damages for losses suffered
by defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans stemming
from the bank's securities lending activities.

The complaint alleges that Northern Trust was imprudent in
investing cash collateral pools or collective trusts in its
securities lending program in illiquid and leveraged assets,
which led to losses, according to the Pensions & Investments
report.

The suit is "Diebold v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-01934," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge George W. Lindberg,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elizabeth Daley Hoskins Dow, Esq.
          (ldow@baileyglasser.com)
          Bailey & Glasser, LLP
          1003 Western Avenue
          Joliet, IL 60435
          Phone: (815) 740-4034


PASO ROBLES: Faces Suit Over Illegally Imposed Sewer, Water Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Paso Robles, California faces a purported class-
action lawsuit that was filed by members of the group Concerned
Citizens of Paso Robles, alleging that the city illegally
imposed water and sewer fees in violation of Proposition 218 and
seeking the return to ratepayers of an estimated $8 million, The
Paso Robles Press reports.

The action -- filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court On
March 25, 2009 -- intends to recover bill payer's money for
illegally collected water and sewer fees by City officials,
reaching back as far as 2002.  More than $8 million could be
refunded to city residents, according to The Paso Robles Press
report.

According to a press release issued by CCPR on March 27, 2009,
the plaintiffs alleged that reaching back as far as 2002 "and
perhaps earlier," the city failed to obtain voter approval for
the charges or fees, which also compelled a writ of mandate to
return the illegally collected fees to bill payers in the
community.

The Paso Robles Press reported that Paul Heidenreich, Esq., an
attorney for Manhattan Beach-based Huskinson, Brown, Heidenreich
& Carlin, LLP, is lead counsel for the plaintiffs.


ZURN PEX: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Leaks in Plumbing Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Zurn Pex, Inc., a manufacturer of PEX plumbing systems, now
faces eleven class action lawsuits for leaking brass fittings
used in its plumbing systems.

     Homeowners have filed class action lawsuits against Zurn in
Minnesota (three), Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Alabama,
Louisiana, North Carolina (two) and Virginia. More suits are
expected.  Plumbing fittings made by Zurn can be identified by a
"QPEX" stamp on the fitting.

     According to one of the homeowners' attorneys, Shawn
Raiter, problems with Zurn's brass fittings can cause
significant damage to homes.  "Water damage from a total
failure, or even a slow leak, can cause serious damage.  A large
percentage of the brass fittings in a typical residential PEX
system are hidden behind drywall or between floors.  If
undetected, water damage from a leaking fitting can be
substantial."

     Zurn has reportedly sold these brass PEX fittings across
the country.  Through information obtained in the lawsuits,
Raiter estimates that Zurn has received thousands of warranty
claims for leaking or cracked fittings.  Because of these
premature failures, Zurn no longer recommends installation of
the brass fittings in certain geographic areas.

     Some plumbers have had Zurn fittings leak or crack in 200
or more different properties.  And while Zurn initially honored
its warranty and covered the damage caused by the leaking brass
fittings, the company stopped paying claims, leaving homeowners
and plumbers to pay for the damage themselves.

     The lawsuits seek damages to pay for the complete
replacement of all brass Zurn fittings for PEX systems,
regardless of whether those fittings have already failed, as a
way to prevent damage caused by future leaks and failures.  They
also seek to compensate plumbers and others who have paid for
repairs or damage caused by the Zurn fittings.

     The lawyers recommend that both plumbers who have had
problems with Zurn fittings and owners of properties with Zurn
PEX systems contact them to discuss their rights.  "It is
important that consumers are aware of this lawsuit.  If
consumers provide their contact information, we can keep them
informed about the status of the litigation.  Also, if the
lawsuit is successful -- by settlement or judgment -- contact
information can help us notify consumers how to obtain their
share of any recovery," said Shawn Raiter.

     For further information about the lawsuit, visit:
http://www.zurnclassaction.com.

For more details, contact:

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. (sraiter@larsonking.com)
          Larson King LLP
          St. Paul, Minnesota
          Phone: 877-373-5501


* Seyfarth Shaw Partner Comments on U.S. Supreme Court Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Seyfarth Shaw LLP, one of America's leading full-service
law firms, released on March 31, 2009, the following statement
from Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Co-Chair of the firm's national
Complex Discrimination Litigation Practice Group, and General
Editor of the annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report:

     "As age discrimination complaints are the fastest growing
category of job bias complaints filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Supreme Court's disposition
of the 'Gross v. FBL Financial' case will have wide-ranging
consequences for employees and their employers.  Existing case
law has consistently placed the burden of proof for a case such
as this—which is brought under the ADEA and concerns a sole
decision- maker—on the plaintiff to prove that their termination
was based on age discrimination.  A change in that burden of
proof process may well open employers up to even more workplace
litigation.

     "We've documented in our annual Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report that job displacements caused by the troubled
economy brought further exposure to workplace litigation for
employers.  Against the back drop of an unemployment rate above
eight percent nationally—and above 10% in California, the most
litigious state in the country—combined with the EEOC's priority
of asserting pattern or practice lawsuits, we're in the thick of
a 'perfect storm' generating an onslaught of age discrimination
complaints.  Without many opportunities to find new jobs,
displaced workers feel like their backs are up against the
'financial wall' and many will file lawsuits against their
former employers out of a sense of desperation.

     "There is a built-in procedural lag time from the filing of
the complaint with the EEOC to the time that a plaintiff may
file a lawsuit alleging that he or she had been discriminated
against by their employer, so we haven't yet seen the full
impact of these cases hitting the court system.  The flood we're
seeing of age discrimination complaints should crest sometime
during the third quarter of this year."

For more details conatct:

          Mark S. Roy, Public Relations Manager
          (mroy@seyfarth.com)
          Elisa Marks, Public Relations Sr. Associate
          (emarks@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          Phone: 212-218-5272 or 212-218-5273
          Web site: http://www.seyfarth.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROCHESTER FUND: Johnson Bottini Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     On March 27, 2009, Johnson Bottini, LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Rochester
Fund Municipals (NASDAQ:RMUNX) (NASDAQ:RMUBX) (NASDAQ:RMUCX)
from February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008.

     The complaint charges Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., the Fund and
certain of its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

     Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors about
the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in an over 30%
decline in the Fund's value.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Frank A. Bottini, Esq. (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
          Derek Wilson, Esq. (derekw@johnsonbottini.com)
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          Phone: 619-230-0063


ROCHESTER FUND: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C and/or Class Y shares of the Rochester Fund
Municipals (NASDAQ: RMUNX) (NASDAQ: RMUBX) (NASDAQ: RMUCX)
(NASDAQ: RMUYX) during the period from February 26, 2006 to
October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The action is captioned, "Begley v. Rochester Fund
Municipals, OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al. (D. Colo.)."

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially
false and misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. The
Fund invests primarily in municipal securities.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's
investments, including, but not limited to:

       -- the Fund's investments in "inverse floater" securities
          exposed it to the risk that it would be forced to
          sell, upon certain occurrences relating to the inverse
          floater securities, other securities in its portfolio
          at fire sale prices, and

       -- the Fund had over concentrated in investments in
          illiquid securities in violation of its cap of 15% by
          investing in tobacco bonds which were illiquid.

     According to the Fund's registration statements and
prospectuses, the Fund invested in inverse floaters to seek
greater income and total return. The complaint alleges that the
registration statements issued during the class period and other
sales materials employed in marketing the Fund failed to
disclose that in connection to its inverse floater agreements
the Fund had an obligation to repay the principal amount of the
tendered securities if short-term interest rates rose making the
value of the bond drop significantly and leaving holders of the
inverse floaters with a security that pays little interest or
proves worthless.  If the obligation to repay the principal on
the inverse floaters was triggered, the Fund would be forced to
sell securities from its portfolio (not just the inverse floater
securities) to satisfy its contractual obligations, regardless
of market conditions or its original investment rational for
those securities.  In fact, the Fund's investments in "inverse
floater" securities amounted to billions of dollars in
undisclosed potential liabilities (well beyond the face cost of
the inverse floater securities).

     The Fund's registration statements and prospectuses also
represented that the Fund would invest no more than 15% of its
assets in illiquid securities, which are securities that do not
trade in an active market and are riskier because the fund may
not be able to sell the securities at the desired price, if at
all.  Related to this representation, the Fund stated that its
manager, OppenheimerFunds, would monitor the holdings of
illiquid securities on an ongoing basis to determine whether to
sell any holdings to maintain adequate liquidity.

     The complaint alleges that contrary to its representations,
the registration statements issued during the class period and
other sales materials employed in selling and marketing the Fund
failed to disclose that, the Fund invested more than 15% of its
funds in illiquid securities, including illiquid "tobacco
bonds."

     In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus
supplement alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors.

For more details, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Ann Marie Vu, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com/


WELLS FARGO: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C. and Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California on March
27, 2009 on behalf of all persons who purchased the WFMBS Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR18, 2006-17, 2006-15, 2006-
16, 2006-AR19, 2006-18, 2006-20, 2006-19, 2007-1, 2007-PA1,
2007-2, 2007-AR3, 2007-4, 2007-3, 2007-5, 2007-6, 2007-7, 2007-
8, 2007-9, 2007-10, 2007-11, or 2007-12 (the "Certificates" or
the "WFMBS Certificates"), backed by pools mortgage loans,
pursuant to or traceable to each certificates' respective
offering (collectively, the "Offerings") against Wells Fargo
Asset Securities Corporation ("WFASC"), certain officers and
directors of WFASC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("WFB"), the Issuer,
Depositor, Underwriters of the certificates and certain ratings
agencies (the "Underwriter Rating Agencies"), pursuant to
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o ("Class").

     The case name is styled, "General Retirement System of the
City of Detroit v. The Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities
2006-AR18 Trust, et al."

     The Complaint alleges that following the issuance of the
Certificates, information began to emerge revealing that WFB
routinely disregarded the underwriting guidelines set forth in
the WFB mortgage loan origination documents.  The veracity of
this information was subsequently confirmed by the disclosure of
substantially higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosures on
collateral for such highly-rated debt issues.  These
disclosures, and the poor performance of the collateral, forced
the Underwriter Rating Agencies to review and revise downward
the ratings assigned to the Certificates due to the fact that
the true nature of the collateral had not been properly assessed
at the time of the Offerings and the ratings assigned by the
Underwriter Rating Agencies did not accurately reflect expected
delinquencies.  The Underwriter Rating Agencies downgraded the
Certificates in August 2008, causing a substantial decline in
the value of the Certificates.

     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in
by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and
misleading Offering Documents (the Form S-3 registration
statement filed on or about September 27, 2006, the Form S-3/A
filed on October 11, 2006, and the certificates' respective
prospectus supplements), plaintiff and the other members of the
Class have sustained substantial damage in connection with the
purchase of the securities issued pursuant to or traceable to
the Offering Documents.

For more details, contact

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          David W. Wales, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone  (800) 575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/

               - and -

          One South Broad Street
          Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215 238-1700
          Fax: 215 238-1968
          e-Mail: info@kohnswift.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *